[cle-release-team] An interesting (bug?) : release problem

Aaron Zeckoski azeckoski at unicon.net
Thu Jul 5 03:55:44 PDT 2012 

I wouldn't worry too much about the size of the DM block. Lots of
other projects have lists of dependencies that are miles long.

I would worry about changing the way master works too much because
most contrib tools depend on it directly so if we take too much out we
will break all the contrib tools and that's not an acceptable fix for
the community.

I do like the idea of the kernel POM depending on the master POM but
I'm not sure this makes sense since master defines the kernel versions
in DM. I definitely don't like the way master imports the kernel pom
the way it does. That has always bothered me.
>From the master POM:
                <dependency>
                        <artifactId>kernel</artifactId>
                        <groupId>org.sakaiproject</groupId>
                        <version>${sakai.kernel.version}</version>
                        <type>pom</type>
                        <scope>import</scope>
                </dependency>
(and it depends on other parts of the kernel as well)

I suspect we probably need something like:
sonatype -> super-master -> kernel -> master -> tool-base or sakai-base

(or something to that effect)

-AZ


On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 3:15 AM, David Horowitz <david.horwitz at uct.ac.za> wrote:
> However any task that does dependency analysis will also analyze the dm,
> this is partly why we created the pure poms. It greatly speeded up releases
> by rationalizing the amount of artifacts scanned doing the analysis phase.
>
> I'm also not sure why that very old junky is defined that high up ....
>
>
> It feels to me here we are throwing out the baby with the bath water and
> ending up with a big monolithic , fragile build.
>
> D
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 04 Jul 2012, at 7:51 PM, Matthew Jones <matthew at longsight.com> wrote:
>
> The only dependency master has is junit. Everything else it just dependency
> management which every tool that inherits from it is free to use or override
> if they prefer to use a different version. It was seen more of a
> convenience. By moving the kernel dependencyManagement stuff over into
> master as well, it will add a lot more dependencyManagement, but all of
> these are already "imported" anyway. Everything that has master as a parent
> already imports all of the kernel dependencyManagement because of SAK-18921.
>
> I just think it would make sense having master on top of deverything. Our
> dependency tree should remain the same as no new dependencies are added from
> this that aren't already there. The only thing it would do is make it easier
> for doing releases since right now I have to release kernel manually, then
> release master manually, then I can release all of the indies
> semi-automatically.
>
> If I do this, I can release master manually (or possibly automatically) then
> everything else semi-automatically, including kernel.
>
> Master version may go up high and fast, but I think keeping the 2.9, 2.10 in
> front is a still a good idea.
>
> If we actually had more people working on these 30 individual tools rather
> than just the 4-5 of us, then also moving the properties and
> dependencyManagement out would make sense, but this just seems like the only
> way to manage a code-base this huge with ~2 days available a month for each
> person doing releases to work on it.
>
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 11:28 AM, David Horowitz <david.horwitz at uct.ac.za>
> wrote:
>>
>> Some things to consider
>>
>> 1 if there is 1 high level Pom it should be simple, it should not define
>> every API in shared the way master Does. Otherwise all we are doing is
>> breaking the work to clean up our dependency tree by declaring a dependency
>> by everything on everything.
>>
>> There fore it should really just be framework dependencies, build profiles
>> and licenses etc
>>
>> The scope of a maven property is the Pom it's declared in, really we
>> should not be using properties in master anywhere else
>>
>> D
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On 04 Jul 2012, at 1:04 PM, Aaron Zeckoski <aaronz at vt.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >> I suppose this wasn't done because I believe there was some idea that
>> >> kernels might release faster than the regular cycle of Sakai and master
>> >> would get out of sync. And what version would you release master as?
>> >> This
>> >
>> > Other way around. The idea was that kernel would not be changed as
>> > often as the rest of Sakai and it would be released less.
>> >
>> > -AZ
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Matthew Jones <matthew at longsight.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> I agree, it kind of feels like at this point that master should be the
>> >> parent for kernel, all of those dependencies defined in kernel that
>> >> were
>> >> imported in SAK-18921 moved into master, rather than the other way
>> >> around.
>> >>
>> >> All master does is define properties and dependencyManagement. I
>> >> believe if
>> >> that was worked around so that we just made kernel a "regular indie"
>> >> and it
>> >> was
>> >>
>> >> oss-parent<-master<-all indies (including kernel)
>> >> oss-parent<-master<-base<-all regular stuff
>> >>
>> >> I was kind of hoping at one time for some type of "indie-base" that
>> >> maven
>> >> could use to help figure out the release order so it didn't have to be
>> >> manually defined. I'm not sure if this was possible or not.
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps this is the missing piece at the top?
>> >>
>> >> I suppose this wasn't done because I believe there was some idea that
>> >> kernels might release faster than the regular cycle of Sakai and master
>> >> would get out of sync. And what version would you release master as?
>> >> This
>> >> hasn't happened and 2.9 Sakai has always matched with 1.3.kernel.
>> >> Potentially a new master for each indie release of anything, but
>> >> they've
>> >> been locked together since I've been doing it.
>> >>
>> >> Would we ever have a 2 *released* Sakai 2.9's, one with a 1.3 kernel
>> >> and one
>> >> with a 1.4 kernel? That really doesn't feel likely at all anymore. I
>> >> think
>> >> even if we did we'd still have the confusion in the present state.
>> >>
>> >> -Matthew
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Steve Swinsburg
>> >> <steve.swinsburg at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> It seems odd that the kernel needs to be built before the master.
>> >>> Master
>> >>> should be the top level parent for everything.
>> >>>
>> >>> In https://jira.sakaiproject.org/browse/SAK-18921 the rationale was
>> >>> that
>> >>> these artifacts were deployed by the kernel so they need to be kept in
>> >>> sync
>> >>> with both projects, therefore use the import dependency. I would
>> >>> suggest
>> >>> these be moved out so instead of being deployed by the kernel they are
>> >>> deployed by another pom, kernel-deploy would be a good spot.
>> >>>
>> >>> cheers,
>> >>> Steve
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 04/07/2012, at 5:38 AM, Matthew Jones wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> So the Sakai release/build process is pretty bad. If you build it with
>> >>> a
>> >>> populated repository you get unpredictable results. If you build it
>> >>> with an
>> >>> empty repository it breaks. I'm not sure if this is a bug in maven or
>> >>> a bug
>> >>> in Sakai at the moment.
>> >>>
>> >>> The problem with this really is this:
>> >>> https://jira.sakaiproject.org/browse/SAK-18921
>> >>>
>> >>> Master has an import dependency on kernel so it requires kernel to be
>> >>> built before it can work. So I decided to try to change the master
>> >>> parent to
>> >>> kernel instead of sonatype so it would always build kernel first
>> >>> correctly
>> >>> as part of the reactor order (it still needs to build from base)
>> >>> https://jira.sakaiproject.org/browse/SAK-22353
>> >>>
>> >>> So when you run "mvn clean install" on the base pom, it should see it
>> >>> has
>> >>> a parent of master->has a parent of kernel and know it needs to build
>> >>> everything.
>> >>>
>> >>> It all seemed okay *except* when the build gets to the first tool that
>> >>> has
>> >>> a kernel dependency, it wants the wrong kernel version!
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> http://nightly2.sakaiproject.org/logs/sakai-rel/build-2012-07-03-01:00:02.log.txt
>> >>>
>> >>> 1) org.sakaiproject.kernel:sakai-component-manager:jar:1.2-SNAPSHOT
>> >>>
>> >>> This is defined in kernel pom's dependencyManagement with the
>> >>> "${project.version}" variable. And 1.2-SNAPSHOT is the version of
>> >>> common
>> >>>
>> >>> <dependency>
>> >>> <groupId>org.sakaiproject.kernel</groupId>
>> >>> <artifactId>sakai-component-manager</artifactId>
>> >>> <version>${project.version}</version>
>> >>> <scope>provided</scope>
>> >>> </dependency>
>> >>> <dependency>
>> >>> <groupId>org.sakaiproject.kernel</groupId>
>> >>> <artifactId>sakai-kernel-api</artifactId>
>> >>> <version>${project.version}</version>
>> >>> <scope>provided</scope>
>> >>> </dependency>
>> >>> <dependency>
>> >>> <groupId>org.sakaiproject.kernel.component.api</groupId>
>> >>> <artifactId>sakai-component-manager</artifactId>
>> >>> <version>${project.version}</version>
>> >>> <scope>provided</scope>
>> >>> </dependency>
>> >>> </dependencies>
>> >>>
>> >>> Somehow the version of the end child (common) is going all the way up
>> >>> to
>> >>> chain to the parent, and it's using that rather than the 1.3-SNAPSHOT
>> >>> defined in that pom. If I change this ${project.version} to be
>> >>> "1.3-SNAPSHOT" (or as a property with a value of 1.3-SNAPSHOT) in
>> >>> these 3
>> >>> places, the build works. If I revert SAK-18921 and put the parent of
>> >>> master
>> >>> back to sonatype it works too. (It's able to figure out kernel needs
>> >>> to be
>> >>> built first as it's a dependency for other projects, it just can't
>> >>> figure it
>> >>> out as an import dependency).
>> >>>
>> >>> Maven 3 is even worse, because it fails completely without the
>> >>> relativePaths that were added in
>> >>> https://jira.sakaiproject.org/browse/SAK-22321 .
>> >>>
>> >>> So I don't know what's up with this ${project.version}. Maybe it's
>> >>> bugged
>> >>> for multi module projects? I see a lot of random jiras. Same behavior
>> >>> in
>> >>> Maven 3.0.4 and 2.2.1.
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm thinking of just moving the
>> >>>
>> >>>        <sakai.kernel.version>1.3.0-SNAPSHOT</sakai.kernel.version>
>> >>>
>> >>> property into kernel, and using that? I don't know . . .
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> cle-release-team mailing list
>> >>> cle-release-team at collab.sakaiproject.org
>> >>> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cle-release-team
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> cle-release-team mailing list
>> >> cle-release-team at collab.sakaiproject.org
>> >> http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cle-release-team
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Aaron Zeckoski - Software Architect - http://tinyurl.com/azprofile
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > cle-release-team mailing list
>> > cle-release-team at collab.sakaiproject.org
>> > http://collab.sakaiproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cle-release-team
>> >
>
>



-- 
Aaron Zeckoski - Software Architect - http://tinyurl.com/azprofile

More information about the cle-release-team mailing list